http://activistcash.com/organization_ov … des-center
It's a money laundering operation for rich progressives that don't want people to know what they are supporting. This raises questions like why? Why are these people afraid to be seen as supporting progressive ideals?
Ah, so the Tides foundation really is evil. Guess that guy was right for trying to go massacre some folks out there. Too bad the cops got to him first.
He was no more right to shoot up cops than the Black Panthers were to intimidate voters or talk about killing cracker babies. A biblical quote comes to mind: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Matthew 7:5
I'm rather partial to the King James version of that passage.
Well if you were wondering how rich people screw poor people over, this is the way they do it, at least in the modern world. That whole Guttenberg press and gunpowder really put the kibosh on the ancien regime. So the new aristocrats have to be a little more circumspect as to how they go about screwing people. They have to do things like, oh I don't know, suppress data that shows global warming to be a hoax. Stuff like that.
Yes, or pay people like Fox News to misreport the facts.
Do you have proof of that?
Or is it just part of the overall game plan?
Why don't you ask LE if he has proof that global warming is a hoax? LOL.
I mean, gosh, they sure do have all those climate scientists fooled. Must be a lot of work to fool people who study climate into thinking that the climate is changing...
It might surprise you Will, but no hypothesis is considered valid if it's based on computer modeling. When you compare what the models say to actual observed data on temperature over the last decade, the models fail to predict what you actually see as observed.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index … snt-match/
So yeah, the anthropocentric global warming fanatics are wrong. When the observed data doesn't fit the model, you throw the model out. You must have also missed the significance of the Climategate thing, so I'll explain it in small words.
http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PU … 23794.html
Data was withheld from scientists and the public because it didn't adhere to the orthodoxy of human induced global warming. That's not exactly science. Banning books and ideas sounds like the bad stupid things the Church got into starting in the Early Modern Era. Looks like scientists are inherently any less prone to lying and cheating than priests.
It's based on a lot more than computer models LE. Why don't you read my series of hubs on the subject?
And climategate is some of that Breitbart/Fox news style media tempest in a teapot stuff. Several scientific organizations have looked at the data and the emails and determined that there was no cover up.
Perhaps you could explain the Little Ice Age, then? How about the elimination of the so-called "hockey stick" that claims the Medieval Warming Period never happened. Or the fact that as you go further back in time, your data become more and more unreliable. Counting tree rings is notoriously inaccurate as a tool for understanding climate. Not to mention the fact that where you place temperature monitors makes a difference in what temperatures are reported.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image … report.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image … asting.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image … change.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image … cement.pdf
Thanks for the heads up on the hubs, I'll be sure to check them out.
The little ice age was a regional event. Michael Mann's findings have been found to be quite robust(the hockey stick you are referring to). And Counting tree rings is not the only way to examine past climate. Etc. Each one of your points is a talking point that I've seen over and over and if you take the time to investigate the claims and read the papers you'll see that they don't really hold water.
I thought a region was supposed to be a limited geographical area, not an entire hemisphere of the planet. Looks like there's some semantics going on.
You're right though. The argument does get boring. The question I would pose to you is simply this. Say we do what Gore and his eco-nuts want us to do and emasculate our economies. What do we do if they're wrong? We will have destroyed our economies, so our ability to adapt to a non-anthropocentric warming event will be compromised. How many hundreds of millions will die in that case?
Even if human induced global warming is true, the real issue to meeting our energy demands in a cost effective way. The only way to do that is to allow economics to work. Trying to juryrig a response will only make the issue worse.
Perhaps this might illustrate what I'm trying to say better:
If waste product is really that harmful to the environment, then we need to make sure that those responsible for the damage pay to clean it up. Unfortunately, those people use the power of government to put a cap on damages. Can you say BP?
Who says we are going to emasculate our economy?
And I can guarantee you, as someone who has been an environmental activist for some years now, that polluting industries will do every single thing in their power to avoid paying for the damage they do to public health and the environment. It's good business to do so, and would be irresponsible to the shareholders to do otherwise.
Except you forget the whole human thing. Shareholders are humans too, and just as susceptible to the effects of toxic dumping as anyone else. Not only that you also forget about the customer angle. How much pressure do you think is being brought to bear on people to not do business with BP anymore? I don't think they'll survive this mess in the Gulf, nor should they survive. If they don't survive, it'll be because their customers have abandoned them and they've been sued into oblivion....oh wait the Obama administration capped the damages that can be sought against BP. Oops.
But then I forget, you lefties tend to think of consumers, not customers. There's a bit of a difference between the two.
Which is why the toxic dumping generally happens in impoverished communities where people don't have the power to fight it.
Yes, see how everyone stopped buying gasoline after the Gulf Spill? Oh, wait... Our entire culture and economy is still totally dependent on cars and thus on the companies that drill for oil? Shit! Customers really don't have much power to cut our dependence on oil, do we?
Do we? Really? LOL. I could have sworn it was a marketing term used by businesses, and you know how anti business all lefties are.
Most of the warming denier scientists are funded by the oil and coal industries, by people like the Koch oil family of Oklahoma and EXXON.
How is that any different from Al Gore standing to make billions from "green" technology or GE standing to make billions from their "smart grid". When you have two sides that are pushing propaganda, you have to fall back on logic and reason. You put an awful lot of faith in "authorities", but I'm with Carl Sagan on this one: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
Too bad he could take his own advice while he was alive. Good book though.
It's quite different. The coal, oil and electric power industries have spent many millions in their effort to stop the country from doing anything about global warming.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."
Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do." In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies—are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is "a lot of disagreement among climate scientists" on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today.
As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk about addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action. Yes, last September Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a landmark law committing California to reduce statewide emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent more by 2050. And this year both Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring their states to reduce greenhouse emissions 80 percent below recent levels by 2050. In January, nine leading corporations—including Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Du Pont and General Electric—called on Congress to "enact strong national legislation" to reduce greenhouse gases. But although at least eight bills to require reductions in greenhouse gases have been introduced in Congress, their fate is decidedly murky. The Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives decided last week not even to bring to a vote a requirement that automakers improve vehicle mileage, an obvious step toward reducing greenhouse emissions. Nor has there been much public pressure to do so. Instead, every time the scientific case got stronger, "the American public yawned and bought bigger cars," Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey congressman and physicist, recently wrote in the journal Science; politicians "shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."
I can prove global warming is a reality.
At one time scientists tell us the earth was almost covered with ice. As far as I can tell that is no longer the case, thus the earth must have gotten warmer?
Man made global warming is a hoax!
I don't need to ask him how he knows global warming is a hoax.
Do you have proof that fox news is misreporting the news because they are being paid to do so?
Nothing I say will convince you of anything Jim, so why don't you go and research some things for yourself?
Edit: if you are serious about looking into it, you might start with Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky's propaganda model.
You are correct about that.
Nothing you say will convince me, don't think it ever will.
I have read your assertions and the extremes you go to to make a point.
I have seen you change words to fit your argument.
I have seen you refer to other members of this forum in despicable terms.
Nothing you say will ever convince me of anything.
"Lol. You're better than Sad Ho."
I believe his name is "Sab Oh"
I think its despicable to call him what you called him.
gosh. I'm so ashamed. How despicable of me.
LOL. I am ashamed, I will admit, for saying "ho".
So... just how "evil" is the Tides foundation anyway?
Why don't you ask the OP? He's the one who used that language.
He merely asked a question.
"What is evil about the tides foundation?"
Quotation means things.
Words mean things too. And subtext is everything.
Let's say a cop pulls me over. I hand him my wallet so he can see my license. The corner of a hundred dollar bill is also poking out of my wallet.
As I hand him my wallet, I say "I hope we can take care of this without too much trouble Officer."
Bribe him? Of course not! How dare you say that?
When the officer asks you for your ID look him in the eye and say No Hablo English. Then you will not have to show him anything.
A Police Officer won't take your wallet, he will ask you to remove the license and hand him or her that.
I know, I know, lets pretend.
Thats a question, see the punctuation?
Jim, if you're clueless about the Tides Foundation, you're contributing nothing to this forum topic other than being a shit disturber. (http://onlineslangdictionary.com/defini … +disturber)
How is it that you haven't been banned already?
How is it that you persist in not reading what is written and getting upset when someone doesn't use the exact same words you used?
I've been banned a couple of times. (s..t disturber is American slang for trouble maker.)
I like that passage too. It is one of my favorites.
Yes, like calling a foundation "evil."
Nothing like it.
I guess you can report that as a personal attack if you want.
Edit: I was sorry as soon as I posted it, because of the use of the word Ho, which is disrespectful to women.
Must be a typo. Nobody would call him a Sad Ho.
The first post asks for clarification about what kind of evil it is, the second one outright calls it evil.
That's funny. The site you point to is run by the "Center for Consumer Freedom" which clearly states on its site: "Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors."
How is that any different???
It's a group that seeks to protect themselves from government intrusion into their business. They seem to oppose legislation that would ban "bad food". I can't say that I'm surprised to see something like that form against the people who want to restrict what you can and can't eat. Choosing to live an unhealthy lifestyle is, after all, a choice and people will find a way to indulge in their vice, if that's what they want to do.
So that's how they're different from the Tides Foundation.
No your point was supposedly the fact that the Center for Consumer Freedom takes money from shadowy sources, which it would seem the Tides Foundation does as well. The difference lies in the aims of the two organizations. The CCF wants to protect its affiliated businesses from the intrusion of people who want control over what people eat in the US. The Tides Foundation wants to promote social justice, whatever that is supposed to mean. Big difference between the two.
Well if the KKK and any Aryan groups ever raised money from shadowy sources, it's comforting to know that people won't see it as any different from any other organization!
So the end justifies the means, in other words.
Wait, so freedom to eat what you want is a bigger and better cause than freedom to live as you want? Wow. Don't see that, at all.
I don't quite see the difference LE. Maddie wins.
You mean like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Foundation? Not to mention the FreedomForum or whatever Dick Armey calls his right wing group that's been supporting the Tea Party.
Ralph I don't necessarily agree that global warming is human caused. That doesn't mean I'm not open to the idea that temperatures change over time. I don't believe we can control those things and since we can't we're better off exploring mitigation strategies rather than screaming at one another until we're blue in the face. I, personally, think we're headed to a cooling phase which could occur within a decade. If we're going to prepare, we need to start looking at what to do now. Or, more in keeping with my libertarian leanings, stop trying to control the debate and encourage people to think about how a cooling or warming event will impact them. Then, at least, if one of us is right, people won't be running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Consumers came into vogue after WW II to describe the new Keynesian economic order. Keynes is notorious for disregarding people and resorting to pure numbers. Economics is about people and the decisions they make, not aggregate demand and other Keynesian nonsense.
Yes and I suppose the dumping happens in brown communities like our Green Czar claimed. If we respected property rights in this country anyone who had sludge dumped on their property could go after the polluter with hammer and tongs.
If you're so concerned about the gasoline problem, perhaps your time would be better spent developing an alternative source that produces as much energy, preferably more, at the same cost, preferably lower, than oil and you'll have changed the world. Any other sort of remedy will make things worse. Need I remind you of MTBE? It was created after car manufacturers were forced to use catalytic converters to treat exhaust. Current leaded gasoline did bad tings to the catalytic converter so an alternative needed to be found. Oops. Now the oil companies are on the hook for something that was forced on the industry by legislation. Hmm. Shades of the CRA there.
by William R. Wilson7 years ago
Why does he hate America?http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/20 … s-UPDATED-
by Mike Russo4 years ago
Do you believe global warming is causing the extreme weather conditions we are experiencing in the U.S? Please watch this video and then comment.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7EHvfaY8Zs
by websclubs7 years ago
Is Global warming nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic?
by usmankhan17 years ago
This is a very serious issue which i wanted to raised among all the people who are member of Hub Pages. We can suggest some new, useful and good ideas about how to save the world from global warming.What are you waiting...
by sannyasinman7 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
by Holle Abee16 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.